get_prereq_tree

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output type (AST with course titles) and the use case, but it does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior (e.g., if course not found), or whether it is a read operation. The description is adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key information about the tool's output and purpose. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly expanded to include parameter details without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one parameter (undocumented), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains the output's purpose but leaves out critical details about the input format and behavioral context, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, course_string, has 0% schema description coverage and the tool description does not mention it at all. It provides no format, example, or guidance on how to specify the course. With a single parameter, the description should compensate but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns an annotated prerequisite tree (AST with course titles) and its purpose: to explain why a course is or isn't available. The verb 'get' and resource 'prerequisite tree' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like check_eligibility which likely does a direct eligibility check.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use to explain WHY a course is or isn't available,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not state when not to use or explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is well-aligned with the tool's function.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.